This POS jet fighter, which the Pentagon intends to buy 2,200 units for operation over the next 30 years or so at a cost approaching $1,000,000,000,000, can't turn worth a damn, can't climb, can't accelerate, and its mission systems are riddled with so many bugs it can only function at a quarter of its intended capability.

At best, the DoD has on its hands, with the JSF, a supersonic bomb truck with a low radar cross section from the front and side profiles. At worst it's a liability for its pilots and a worthless war machine. With a gross takeoff weight of over 66,000 lbs, its way too much of a porker for a lightweight fighter. It's wing loading and maneuverability are similar to the F-105 - an unglamorous comparison considering that 1 out of every 2 F-105s built was shot down over North Vietnam by missiles and MiGs it could not outmaneuver. The F-35's 40,000 lb thrust engine, the most massive ever installed on a jet fighter still only gives it a 0.7:1 thrust to weight ratio in a mission configuration yet it gulps fuel. Even with 18,000lbs of internal fuel, the jet has a limited combat radius - far less than other fighters.

In the air-to-mud role, the jet is completely unsuitable for the CAS role, being too fast and lacking the maneuverability to pull it off. It addition it's weapons load out is too limited for the role, its cockpit is unarmored, the engine is buried next to the fuel tanks, and it lacks a powerful internal gun needed for the role - all key ingredients for tank busting and destroying mobile infantry and IFV units.

The carrier variant of the F-35 is deathly overweight and its tail hook has the nasty attribute of not being able to successfully snag an arrestor wire, making it totally useless for carrier operations.

The Marines STOVL version is perhaps the most problematic. The vertical lift system required to hover has been riddled with technical difficulties as well as this version, to is seriously overweight. So bad that even the Pentagon put it on a year long probation to sort out these problems.

The F-35 and support systems employ some 25 million lines of software code, all of which is full of bugs and causing critical failures constantly. LMACO has even silenced a few whistleblowers recently who claim the aircraft has critical failures in its flight control software (think blue-screen-of-death on your PC which is driving the airplane you're flying in at 20,000ft, turning the plane into a dead, uncontrollable hulk at the mercy of the laws of physics). This has forced F-35 test and production aircraft to operate at a diminished capacity while a fix is implemented.

Did I mention that, in an effort to hustle this disaster into service, the Pentagon is relaxing its standards and required performance metrics for the JSF program in order to meet the soggy results coming out of the F-35's flight testing? And we've only done the easy parts of that airplanes flight testing!

Which brings up the subject of concurrency. Production F-35s are rolling off the assembly line and pilots are being trained to fly them all while the airplane has only completed about 40% of its flight test program with shitty results so far. Older production samples have to be returned to the factory so they can be updated to the current configuration constantly. Grossly inefficient.

And this kind of grab-assery has been going on since the inception of the JAST program in the 1990s which became the JSF in 2000 which became the F-35 in 2006. Lockheed and the Pentagon intentionally lowballed the F-35s price tag, then farmed out the subcontracts out to some 40+ states, making the continuing funding of the program in the interest of some 80+ senators and over 400 representatives, thus ensuring it would not be killed for poor performance. Wen costs soared to over twice LMACOs original bid, Congress cried fowl but continued to hemmorrage money into the program.

Which means you, I, and every citizen of the United States, Canada, Great Britain, the Netherlands, Belgium, Denmark, Norway, Turkey,and Australia are now forced to pay $150 million* for each one of these flying disasters which can't climb, can't turn, can't accelerate, can't compute, can't survive enemy IADS or fighters, can't land on a carrier - even can't fly within 20 miles of a thunderstorm for fear the fuel in its tanks might ignite and cause the plane to explode?!?!?!

Are you fucking kidding me???????

*As a yardstick for govt handouts, Public Television and radio have an annual combined budget of about $120 million. Republican candidate Mitt Romney wanted NPR axed for this reason but wanted to keep the F-35

"IN THRUST WE TRUST"

"We were conservative Jews and that meant we obeyed God's Commandments until His rules became a royal pain in the ass."

I remember watching the documentary about the competition between lockheed and airbus to win the contract. The lockheed was way worse IMO (heavier, had a second engine for vertical takeoff where as the airbus used it's primary jets). Although I must admit the lockheed did look more badass (the Airbus looked like a flying Mazda 3). but it won because airbus wasn't ready on time and probably because of a lot of back room deals.

It's also hilarious because the JSF was supposed to save us billions as opposed to developing a fighter for each division of the military....Har

...and whats even funnier is that over the last 20 years drones have been showing WAY, WAY more potential than manned fighters, so even if the fighter was the best of it's kind I have a feeling that by 2030 it would be a dinosaur.

The Conservative Party of Canada said they would run a contest for the best aircraft. They said they would put the manufacturing contracts out for competition. They said they would require the contract to have significant industrial benefit for Canada. They lied. They chose the aircraft with no competition, behind closed doors, before the F35 was tested, and continued to lie to us about the selection process and the cost.

That has become typical of my country's government. Lies, hiding the truth, and ignoring reality...

If something can be destroyed by the truth, it might be worth destroying.

Many SecDefs have tried to kill useless, obsolete massively expensive acquisition programs. Almost all have failed. Congress don't pay attention to the ones actually in a position to know what they need, they worry 'bout the loss of jobs in their District or State. It is a corporate welfare program. ... For nearly a decade we had to explicitly identify how our work would contribute to FCS, a doomed from the gitgo attempt at modernization using antiquated business models. ... I mean CORBA? Really? What rock you been living under?

As it was in the beginning is now and ever shall be, world without end. Amen.
And I will show you something different from either
Your shadow at morning striding behind you
Or your shadow at evening rising to meet you;
I will show you fear in a handful of dust.

(26-06-2013 06:05 PM)GirlyMan Wrote: Many SecDefs have tried to kill useless, obsolete massively expensive acquisition programs. Almost all have failed. Congress don't pay attention to the ones actually in a position to know what they need, they worry 'bout the loss of jobs in their District or State. It is a corporate welfare program. ... For nearly a decade we had to explicitly identify how our work would contribute to FCS, a doomed from the gitgo attempt at modernization using antiquated business models. ... I mean CORBA? Really? What rock you been living under?

As I stated in the previous post, its because these defense contractors have learned to compartmentalize the program under a series of subcontractors in a number of different states in order to gain political leverage with the senators and representatives of those areas. After all, you don't want to appear weak on defense or be seen as killing jobs when election time comes, now do you?

"IN THRUST WE TRUST"

"We were conservative Jews and that meant we obeyed God's Commandments until His rules became a royal pain in the ass."

(26-06-2013 06:32 PM)Carlo_The_Bugsmasher_Driver Wrote: As I stated in the previous post, its because these defense contractors have learned to compartmentalize the program under a series of subcontractors in a number of different states in order to gain political leverage with the senators and representatives of those areas. After all, you don't want to appear weak on defense or be seen as killing jobs when election time comes, now do you?

That probably accounts for the bulk of it, but I also put the blame on the Program Manager's who have the responsibility and obligation to control the costs and scope of these programs who nonetheless show preference to the technical advice of the contractor they're in bed with instead of the experts they have at their disposal. ... I have seen some recent signs of that changing, thankfully.

As it was in the beginning is now and ever shall be, world without end. Amen.
And I will show you something different from either
Your shadow at morning striding behind you
Or your shadow at evening rising to meet you;
I will show you fear in a handful of dust.

(26-06-2013 06:32 PM)Carlo_The_Bugsmasher_Driver Wrote: As I stated in the previous post, its because these defense contractors have learned to compartmentalize the program under a series of subcontractors in a number of different states in order to gain political leverage with the senators and representatives of those areas. After all, you don't want to appear weak on defense or be seen as killing jobs when election time comes, now do you?

That probably accounts for the bulk of it, but I also put the blame on the Program Manager's who have the responsibility and obligation to control the costs and scope of these programs who nonetheless show preference to the technical advice of the contractor they're in bed with instead of the experts they have at their disposal. ... I have seen some recent signs of that changing, thankfully.

What I said concerns the OEM's strategies for 'contract survivability'. But another major factor concerning the procurement of these kinds of stupid, useless weapons systems is the Pentagon's ease of being seduced by high tech 'gee whiz' computer driven toys built like a Swiss watch which meet objectives on paper while completely ignoring the reality of combat.

In all types of fighting, there are ways to do it right that work. There are also ways to do it wrong which will get you killed.

In every air war we have ever fought, these four objectives are what meant the difference between life or death (this is for air to air combat.)

- Engage the enemy in lopsided numbers and force in your favor.
- Remain out of sight until it is too late for the enemy.
- Outmaneuver and overwhelm him.
- Kill him quickly and move on.

For this role, a small lightweight fighter, with a high thrust to weight ratio, low wing loading, a low specific weight, a cockpit with all around visibility and minimized blind spots, minimal avionics, an internal gun and short range missiles, and a low acquisition and operating cost have ALWAYS done this with a sterling combat reputation. Examples

Aircraft which do not possess these features have been turkeys in combat and few have been saved, if only by the sheer skill of the pilot. Examples.

- P-47
- F-4
- MiG 25
- F-105
- F-111
- F-14

The problem is that program managers in the Pentagon and politicians on the SASC have always been enamored with latter group. They're shiny, have lots of fancy electronics, promise weapon systems that will revolutionize warfare, all at an astronomical price.

So they buy these pie-in-the sky projects and need several types of aircraft - big, big bucks. And what's a general to do when Congress demands to know why they need so many expensive programs.

Buy a multipurpose plane, of course!

The lure for the Pentagon is that if I can buy one system for all the needed roles, I only have one airplane type to buy spare parts for and logistics on, one type to train pilots in and ground crews to work on and one type to be handled throughout its entire life cycle - 'lust to dust'. On paper, it shows a tremendous cost savings, particularly in spare parts.

It just NEVER works that way in real life.

Historically multipurpose combat aircraft never work out; a fighter optimized for dogfighting with high speed maneuvering at altitude and weapons systems designed for killing other aircraft is generally not very good in a close air support role and vice versa with a tank killing airplane. In order to meet both requirements, compromises must be made in the performance of the aircraft, which results in a plane which is mediocre at both roles. This quickly becomes a liability for the pilots who have to risk their lives over enemy territory in it. There is also the issue of service bureaucracy; each armed service has its own particular requirements and objectives, which quickly conflict with the ones from another service. For example, the Navy likes twin engined aircraft because of the redundancy and safety when operating over water, the Air Force uses the flying boom refueling system, etc.

There is also the politics of the Pentagon to consider. The programs are generally managed by two and three star generals or admirals who are looking towards their retirement from the military and see a successful weapons acquisition program as a quick means to enter politics or get an executive position with a major defense contractor like Boeing. If they can secure a huge contract for $100 billion or so on some useless tank or aircraft, all the more likely that these jobs open up for them in the future is much higher. It also makes it more difficult for personnel under said generals and admirals to deliver honest assessments of hardware's performance in the field as many of them can be demoted or transferred as a punitive measure for speaking out. (That's why the comments made by F-35 pilots about the plane sound like complete bullshit; they are!) This often happened during the Vietnam war and is recurring today at an alarming rate.

Add to this the stupidity of the public mixed with rabid patriotism and an uncritical love for the military and you have a situation where we spend billions on planes and other weapons that don't work as corporate welfare for the likes of Boeing and Lockheed Martin all under the guise of patriotism. The welfare state has never been more bloated.

Pierre Sprey, the man who masterminded the A-10 and F-16 airplanes for the USAF offers his unflattering assessment of the F-35.

Canada is also furious on the cost overruns on the F-35 and seriously considering ordering the Boeing F-18E/F Super Hornet as a replacement. Not a great aircraft either but makes a lot more sense for Canada.

Up next, why we keep buying M1 Abrahms tanks when nobody wants them........Stay tuned for End the Welfare State, Part II.

"IN THRUST WE TRUST"

"We were conservative Jews and that meant we obeyed God's Commandments until His rules became a royal pain in the ass."

Canadian aircraft needs are different from American aircraft needs. Canada does not have an invasion force, nor does it intend to lead invasions. Stealth aircraft are for invading someone else's turf, but Canadian aircraft are used for homeland defense, defensive missions in other countries such as Iceland (currently), and air support for peacekeeping operations (as in Afghanistan). Canadian fighters need to be primarily interceptors, with air-to-ground strike capability, and the F-35 is terribly inadequate for that role.

I remember that - Congress says "Lets buy more tanks for the military!" and the military says "No thanks", but Congress says "We're doing it any way!"

There isn't exactly a shortage of tanks in America's military. They have warehouses full of unused tanks kept for spare parts and lots full of tanks sitting idle because the armoured units already have all the tanks they need.

If something can be destroyed by the truth, it might be worth destroying.